72 COMMENTARY ON MACAULAY'S HISTORY
of this attack [on Athlone] in the Life of James, II. 453,
is an absurd romance. It does not appear to have been
taken from the King's original Memoirs or to have been
revised by his son/ l Often, too, the documents printed in
the Life are garbled.2 On the other hand, on such a
matter as the treasonable relations of some of William's
ministers with the exiled king, the Life of James the Second
is cited by Macaulay as an authority of the highest value.3
He also cites it to prove that James was cognisant of the
plot to assassinate William in i696.4
Macaulay's employment of Burnet's History and the
Life of James shows that he had a just appreciation of the
general value of these works, and his criticisms of certain
passages show great acuteness. But compared with the
modern scientific historian he treats his authorities in a
rather superficial fashion. To see this it is only necessary
to read the two elaborate studies on Burnet and the Life
of James the Second which are contained in the appendix
to Volume VI of Ranke's History of England. The Ger-
man historian, before using either authority, submitted it
as a whole to a minute and careful analysis in order to find"*
out how it was put together and exactly what its value was.
A rough estimate of its value is not enough : the materials
must be carefully weighed and examined that the trust-
worthiness or falsehood of any statement can be precisely
determined. In this way alone can the greatest measure of
certainty be obtained by the historian. Further, the pro-
cess by which the result is arrived at must be made public
in order that other historians may estimate the correctness
of the process and the justice of the conclusions. A more
1IV, 2046 (xvii}. a III, 1290 (x), 1480 (xii) ; V, 2608 (xxi).
3IV, 1989, 2019 (xvii) ; V, 2444 (xx).
*V, 2596, 2608 (xxi).